books

[elmakr]

I was wondering if anyone has read, or has any sort of opinion on, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion? 

I picked it up in the bookstore and looked through it for a while- very interestingly written and I kept thinking about how much it would appeal to my atheist friends. At the same time, not being an atheist myself, I kept wondering how someone

Comments

[kindofwhimsical]

Faith, unlike institutionalized religion, is a private experience, and I think there's really not much you can say about it. It's a completely subjective kind of experience that doesn't really lend itself to being described.

I completely agree! Verbally, logically, it just doesn't translate. The kind of people who do want to talk about it often just want to use their "faith" to boss other people around.

[68024]

I have read the book and agreed with him on many points. However I also thought that he didn't pay enough attention to the possible positive effects of religion.

I agree though that many bad things in history and today are done purely in the name of religion. The question is whether these bad things would also have happened without religion. Some perhaps, simply by using another excuse, but others perhaps not (crusades etc).

I definitely agree with Dawkins though that morality has nothing to do with having religion- something that is often hailed by religious people as a reason for being religious (as if atheists couldn't be morally sound people).

[elmakr]

i agree on the morality point. atheists have to build their own moral system, and in a way that can actually be more difficult and take more courage, because then you don't have an entire establishment backing you up.

religion as a negative force gets all meshed into politics. to me it seems that all those conflicts supposedly fought over religion are really only about control and land. India/ Pakistan is I think the clearest example of that. People in power use religion as a way to control the population, and yea, that's how it gets a bad name. still, tehre's the religion/faith distinction. that kinda manipulation doesn't really have anything to do, i think, with the essence of faith, and that's why I don't agree with Dawkins on that point.

Re: its a racket man.

[elmakr]

well, i don't think dawkins is in the same realm of evil as ann coulter, who i honestly kinda wish we could send into outer space. he's a scientist and i think he just, to quote ezra, "doesn't understand the nature of the question being asked." and maybe isn't really interested in understanding as much as in trying to sound original and definitive.

that said, many many religious people do the same, trying to scientifically prove God/ the bible/ the qu'ran/ whatever.

[sneezypb]

This article isn't so much about Dawkins' book, but it is about the same topic. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17971270/site/newsweek/

"The problem with these debates is that they do not understand the nature of the question being asked." Gellman goes on to describe what is a problem (solvable questions) and a mystery (questions to help us understand ourselves). He puts proving the existence of God in the mystery camp. However, there is value in this debate. Through them we come to understand more about humanity, the Universe (or Multiverse), and even our own individual values.

But maybe Gellman is in the same racket?

[elmakr]

i think that quote on not understanding the nature of the question is spot-on. the mystery/problem thing is what i was trying to get at in my post, except what he says is really a lot more clearly phrased :)

what bothers me is that so many religious people don't seem to get that distinction either. in that sense dawkins is not doing anything different from those who try people who tell me the bible or the qu'ran is scientifically accurate.

in that sense there could be a lot of value in the debate in helping religious people see that they are making essentially the same error.

[sneezypb]

Science is a tool in the path of knowledge. Religion is another tool. We need both to understand the world as they help us understand different aspects of the world. Here is a quote you might like:

"The third teaching or principle of Bahá'u'lláh is that religion and science are in complete agreement. Every religion which is not in accordance with established science is superstition. Religion must be reasonable. If it does not square with reason, it is superstition and without foundation. It is like a mirage, which deceives man by leading him to think it is a body of water. God has endowed man with reason that he may perceive what is true. If we insist that such and such a subject is not to be reasoned out and tested according to the established logical modes of the intellect, what is the use of the reason which God has given man?" Abdul-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 61-65

[elmakr]

i do like that! it reminds me a bit of the principle of ijtihad in modern islam (talked about by irshad manji and in more theoretical detail by tariq ramadan). the idea there is that humans have a duty to use reason to reinterpret the historical religious texts and adapt them to the world we live in now. of course a lot of people unfortunately consider that heresy.

i like the principles of unity and the Manifestations in the Bahá'í faith too...no wonder Bahá'ís don't seem to be starting any wars...

I haven't read the book--but I can't resist posting...

[better_than_air]

I'll begin with a quote from Paul Simon: "Faith is an island in the setting sun, but proof--proof is the bottom line for everyone